Measures like 5 are dangerous because they appeal to emotion. Most people don’t read the text and go for the propaganda. If you put a puppy and kitten on the ads, even though the penalty is lethal injection, it would likely carry.

Every Republican ad appeals to emotion, fear usually. Just like the opponents of measure 5 are using fear to drum up support among the rusty-zipper crowd and low-information voters…along with the direct appeal to the actual animal abusers.

You surprise me Shurkey. You’re usually the first to call “Foul” when there’s a proposal to make stronger laws to incarcerate people…..Like with drunken drivers…..I think your head exploded on a few of those posts…

I am all for controlling the deer, fish, and other wildlife populations. But abuse of a domesticated animal? Make it a felony. Or better yet, put the sadistic, weak minded idiots who commit animal cruelty in the same room as a skilled martial artist and let them know what abuse is like firsthand.

So the Humane Society of Fargo-Moorhead is opposed to Measure 5. As is the Central Dakota Humane Society, the Dakota Zoo and most of the significant agriculture and veterinary groups in the state. Could it be that they know something about this Measure that people like Ron and Jeff H don’t?

If I thought for one second that the legislature would pass a comprehensive law to address this I would vote no. But they have failed again and again and again. If the measure fails, shock, the legislature will fail to act AGAIN.

This should be dealt with through the legislative process not a ballot initiative. Through a ballot initiative voters can only say yes or no, they don’t have any input as they would through the legislative process. As written this initaitve only covers heinous acts. There is nothing in there concerning abandonment or starvation.

I am all for the protection of our pets.. But when I look at this, is it worth a felony conviction? That is what keep asking myself. Felony convictions are supposed to be for the worst of the worst offenses.

Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE my pets and sincerely appreciate the unconditional love that I receive from them. There are some days when in my life that I wouldn’t have made it through the day if it were not for the love I received from a pet. (example, the day my father died).. I would be devastated if I lost one. Even with that, I have a hard time relating the mistreatment of a pet to the same level as a rapist, murderer etc.

Maverik, the uninteded consequences we do not know. I agree totally with your analysis of this emotional issue as I am just as emotional as you when it concerns my dogs, but a felony conviction? I voted NO because I do not know!

Proof that my fears would come true. The low information voters will succumb to the nonsense put forward by Forum Communications and those on the far-right who believe animals do not deserve protection, and they will vote “no” based on fear…and not knowing any better.

What is low information voting about questioning whether or not this proposed law is worth a felony conviction? Please enlighten me. As I stated I absolutely love my Pets, but I am not sure that what I consider a possible over reach of an mandatory sentence is justifiable in my eyes. And yes I have read the ballot measure.

You are on the fence. So either don’t vote on it, or get information and make an informed decision.

Seriously, if someone tortured their horse, or cat, or dog, you don’t think that is worth a felony consideration? If someone injured a dog and tied it to a train track to be torn apart and left to die a slow death, like may have happened in Fisher MN, that’s not worth a felony to you? There is misdemeanor theft, and felony theft. There should be misdemeanor animal cruelty, and felony animal cruelty for the truly heinous.

I’m sorry, but you would surely change your tune if that was your dog tied to the tracks and they found the guilty party, and you couldn’t get your hands around their neck. Vote yes, because there are humans who lack that part of their brain that makes them people. If they do that kind of thing to an animal, they are highly likely to hurt other people.

“68% of battered women reported violence towards their animals. 87% of these incidents occurred in the presence of the women, and 75% in the presence of the children, to psychologically control and coerce them. ”

I find it ironic that many of the above posters frequently attack political candidates for receiving contributions from sources outside the state or from sources viewed as extreme. Support for measure five has received 99.71% of its funding from outside the state. The supporters have publicly stated that the wording is intentionally vague for two reasons; to make the measure “passable” and leave room for “implementation”. The primary sponsor of this bill is the Humane Society of the United States. Please note that this is a very different organization than local humane societies; less than 1% of contributions to HSUS actually go to local animal shelters. HSUS aggressively opposes animal agriculture, hunting, fishing, and rodeos. It also has a fairly extreme position opposing animal ownership. The HSUS has initiated litigation to stop the promotion of beef and pork as well as seeking to eliminate beef and pork research. The CEO of HSUS has publically stated “If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” And, the HSUS Director of Animal Cruelty has publically stated “My goal is the abolition of animal agriculture.” The law as currently written would prevent pet owners from euthanizing their own pets; you would be required to hire a veterinarian. Initiative measures cannot be changed in ND for seven years without a 2/3 majority, so it is not as simple as “we’ll just get rid of it if we don’t like it”. In the last two decades there have been a total of 26 animal abuse cases reported by ND media, only two of which fall within the category that this law is promoted as being intending to prevent. I care about animals. Cruelty to animals should not be tolerated. However, this measure is not the solution. Please don’t be defensive if you have indicated you intend to vote yes, but please look into the issue further. The law is drafted intentionally to elicit a “yes” response.

While I am an animal lover, my position on this issue is not due to my love for animals and is not emotionally based. My position on this issue has to do with the fact that all breathing things deserve fair and humane treatment. I think this issue needs to include more than just dogs, cats, and horses. To be honest, I don’t think this issue is about which animals should be included as much as it is about the humane treatment of all animals from the smallest to the largest. Certain actions are not inhumane such as having cows for the purpose of milk production or hunting to feed a family, but we must look at the way in which actions are carried out. A prime example are the recent cases of abuse of animals on chicken, cow, and pig farms. How are the animals handled? How are they kept – in confining cages or able to walk around? How is the purpose for which they are raised carried out? Owning livestock is acceptable, how are they treated? The only way to truly know is to do undercover or unannounced inspections. When inspections are announced, owners have ample time to make their facilities “appear” humane and there is really no way to catch those who are really running an inhumane operation.

I think this law needs to be all-inclusive and that it should be more specific with regard to the way actions are carried out. No, that doesn’t mean punishing the fisherman who cuts off the head of a fish for the purpose of cooking it for food or hunting for the purpose of decreasing animal populations or for food, but rather the outright and intentional mistreatment of animals.

Even animal lovers like myself are able to judge what is humane and inhumane. We must use common sense in determining what is humane or not. We must set our emotions aside so as not to falsely accuse someone of actions that are not truly inhumane. I for one happen to think that making a dog pull you while on a skateboard or trying to keep up with his or her owner as they ride their bike is cruel. I recognize the risks to both dog and human. But, I am not going to file a complaint against individuals who do such. I have yet to see a dog showing signs of “protest” about having to participate in such activities, although some of them have appeared exhausted and should probably be given more frequent breaks. Some dog owners might tell you that his or her dog really enjoys the run/exercise while others would just grumble about the complaint and I think a court would too.

I am a cat owner. I think it’s cruel to also let cats roam. There are very light leashes on which cats can be that do not pose a risk to their safety. The risk is when they are allowed to roam. Leash laws don’t just apply to dogs. They apply to cats as well. If you really care about your cat, you will either keep him or her indoors or on a leash. It is obvious which cat owners really care about their pet and which ones don’t. There seem to be far more who don’t than who do.

And can I have a video of me rubbing your face in the spot on my lawn that “all good dog owners” supposedly clean up. Maybe we should make it a felony if “all good dog owners” don’t completely sanitize the area after picking up the crap?

But Kyle….You just called johnb “moronic” to vote no because “he doesn’t know”. Now YOU say “I don’t know” if it’s a felony if I kick your dog if it craps on my yard yet YOU are voting yes on the measure. Pot meet kettle.

I don’t know, because it would depend on his malice. Was he scared? If so, not malice and not a felony.

Did he kick the dog while on my leash because he’s an A-hole? Then it would depend on the damage done.

Sometimes dogs pull up and do their business where they want, sometimes they even step off the sidewalk into another person’s yard. It is a crime to not clean it up. If you want the act of a dog pooping to be a crime, start a petition drive.

Why don’t you confess some of the things that you have done to dogs and cats, and let us suggest if those will be felonies or not.

Nd is one of the few states that does not mmake it a felony for the most extreme cases of animal cruelty. There is a reason the majority of the united states make it a felony. This type of behavior can and commmonly starts with animals and than gets carried over to murder and rape of humans. By punishing these few extreme people early on they can get help or at least get locked up off the streets and into the system early on. Plus it takes one sick individual to do the acts described in the admendment.

Nd is one of the few states that does not mmake it a felony for the most extreme cases of animal cruelty. There is a reason the majority of the united states make it a felony. This type of behavior can and commmonly starts with animals and than gets carried over to murder and mistreatment of humans. By punishing these few extreme people early on they can get help or at least get locked up off the streets and into the system early on. Plus it takes one sick individual to do the acts described in the admendment.

First of all I hate animal rights whackos who are against farming and hunting. I do support this admendment because it can be added to and amended in the future
“The proposal would make it a Class C felony to “maliciously and intentionally” harm a dog, cat or horse. It would not apply to production agriculture or to lawful activities of hunters and trappers, licensed veterinarians or scientific researchers, or to people acting in defense of life or property.”

The intent has to be malicious! Putting down your suffering dog cat or horse with one round to the head would not qualify as animal abuse and no court would prosecute you. The opponents of the bill are bringing rediculous politics into it. It is not against farming. It is not against vets. It is not against scientific research. These people are opposed because they were not able to get their own legislation passed and “don’t want ouside sources telling us what to do”. Even though almost every state punishes criminals who commits acts describes as a felony. Go ahead and vote no and than Explain to the nation how someone can do the unthinkable to an animal and walk away with a misdemeanor.

They can add to this issue but they cannot remove it for seven years without a 2/3 majority. It is much easier to add than it is to remove legislation, I read once that is ten times harder to remove. Be careful what you vote for.

Why would you want outside special interest groups interferring in state politics? If you want this issue to be discussed…pressure your state representatives now while this is a key topic. I do think that if this fails it will be brought up. It is that important… but let’s not get taken by a special interest group at election time.

I read this morning on the DNT that a Wisconsin woman is being charge for poisoning her ex-boyfriend’s dog, a german shepherd-lab mix named Mary. She killed the poor animal. She is sitting in jail awaiting trial. I am anxious to see what the outcome will be.

I agree…This is an issue that’s easy to get caught up in the emotional aspect before realizing what has happened. A prime example of this is the three strike law in CA (I’m not sure if they finally ammended it, but I know it was almost impossible to change). That law was backed big time by the public under the gize that it’d keep some violent criminals in jail without the possibility of parole. Only by the time they enacted it the law ended up throwing kids who did things like car theft and other non violent crimes in prison for life. Not only is that a grave injustice, but it’s EXTREMELY expensive to the tax payers because last I read their prisons were busting at the seams and they were spending billions just on incarcerations.

I think we need to take pause on any hot button issues that seems so black and white…..Sure..Who doesn’t want to see someone who harms animals getwhat’s coming to them, but there’s a right way to do things and a wrong way. I’m not convienced this is the right way myself.

dc I know you are satan’s son but you would repeal “make it a Class C felony to “maliciously and intentionally” harm a dog, cat or horse. It would not apply to production agriculture or to lawful activities of hunters and trappers, licensed veterinarians or scientific researchers, or to people acting in defense of life or property.”? Really? I have not heard one argument against this being to in depth. I have heard arguments that it is too vague! That is why you can add to the admendment and make it more specific.

If this were a good thing the veternarians in the state of ND would be behind it. Ask yourself why they aren’t. The organization backing this initiative is PETA-like with a fancy name meant to distract the voters. You fell for it ron but I sure haven’t.

So in that same line why should it be malice if it kills a domestic animal, but ok if the poison is there to kill rodents? Aren’t they animals who shouldn’t be killed too? I mean these issues are generally brought to the attention of people when thinking of cute cuddly pups and cats or such, but not aqcross the board….As well it shouldn’t. My point is that people let this issue grab them by their emotions rather than looking at it in a practical manner.

A good example of not really taking things practical is in sex offenders. Yes we want sex offenders either away from temptation or closely monitored. But that’s preditors who are actually a danger to people. Now days the laws have gone bat crap crazy were someone just over the legal limit who is dating someone just under the limit can end up getting the stygma of being a sex offender as well as all the ramifications that go along with it. I read of on case in NY where a 19 year old was getting married to his pregnant irlfrind who just turned 18 and the whack job judge put him in jail for having had sex with a minor.

The point is these emotional subjects can get way out of hand if we don’t proceed with our eyes wide open. Some think that a misdemeanor is the same as barely doing anything. Misdemeanors carry jail time as well as fines and the worse misdemeanors can carry a fairly substancial amount of time. Often the difference is between doing time locally or going to the pen. So even if this is turned back until it is worked out better….It’s not like criminals will get a free pass the way some seem to suggest on here

Maverick there has been a very low number of cases in nd which would fall under a felony conviction as proposed. But 1 case is one too many and these people should be convicted accordingly. The same argument would be ” there were only x number of homicides in grand forks county so we don’t need felony convictions because it isn’t a problem.